Yet Facebook is still the world's largest social media site with more than 900 million users. And most importantly: Many of those people still visit the site each and every day, regardless of grumbling from cynics or short-term price fluctuations.

One in every five page views on the Internet is a Facebook page. If you think the Internet is valuable, then you implicitly think Facebook is valuable, too.

We've been hard on Facebook at times through the last year, particularly around issuesofprivacy. We will continue to report on them with the same rigor that we've maintained over the years. But as the company's stock has fallen since its IPO, so many people are piling on with glee that I've become skeptical of my own skepticism about the company. It's not so much that nearly a billion people can't be wrong, but more that I know that I can be. (Especially when media sentiment is running so strongly in one direction.)

So, consider this the skeptic's guide to the bull case for Facebook. Because, although you might not know it from the recent commentary, there is still a case for Facebook's success and it is strong.

A Natural Monopoly

Let's start with the most fundamental argument for Facebook: That its unique market position is profitable and will remain profitable.

"The case for Facebook is that it is a natural (tech) monopoly, and
natural monopolies tend to be stable, profitable and rare, thus good
investments," investor Paul Kedrosky wrote in an email to The Atlantic. "Further, such companies tend to be underestimated by the
markets, with most people initially skeptical -- That can't ever get to
the scale it needs! -- and then skeptical later -- That can't continue
to grow! -- as the company matures. Confusing the trainwreck IPO with
the company's fortunes is classic market myopia, getting caught up in
short-term drama and forgetting what was interesting in the first place."

Engagement

This is also a big one. Take a look at the most-recent Comscore numbers for
how many minutes per month visitors to the most popular social media
sites spend. Let's add up Facebook's competition: tumblr (89), Pinterest
(89), Twitter.com only (21), LinkedIn (21), MySpace (8), Google Plus
(3). That's 227 minutes a month. Facebook is pulling in 405 minutes. And it has the largest user
base at almost 170 million monthly active users in the US.

Stop and think about that. Facebook is bigger than tumblr, Pinterest, Twitter.com, LinkedIn, MySpace, and Google Plus ... times two. Put all these numbers together and what you get is: One in every five page views on the Internet is a Facebook page. If the Internet is valuable, Facebook is valuable.

International

Let's put Facebook's 900 million global users in perspective. The largest international broadcast network is the BBC World Service. It reaches 188 million people a week. Facebook, by contrast, reaches so many more and in so many more places. It has become the most global and largest media channel the world has ever known.

Whatever hipster backlash to Facebook that exists in the United States, I didn't see any sign of it in Korea earlier this month. That country had a very strong entrenched social network in CyWorld.
But every youngish person with a phone I could collar told me that Facebook
has crushed CyWorld. Many still maintain accounts on both networks, but
only really use Facebook.

Point being: Our media obsessions are not the world's media obsessions. Our backlashes are not the world's backlashes. And the fact is that 80 percent of the service's users are outside North America. Four out of every five Facebook users comes from somewhere else.

Facebook's design was amazing when it launched. The competition was MySpace, which was obsessed with "personalization." MySpace's theory of design seemed to be that the more offensively cluttered the page was, the more its users would care about the service. Facebook launched with the cleanest, whitest interface imaginable, setting a new standard for How Things Should Look.

Add it up and we have to agree with Flipboard designer Dider Hilhorst's declaration, "Facebook design is the team to beat." And notice how many of those hires had to do with A) mobile B) photos or C) both.

[Photos are] completely central photos to
Facebook's product, and by extension its whole business. The company's
S1 filing reports that, in the last three months of 2011, users uploaded
around 250 million photos per day. For context, around 480 million
people used the service on any given day in that span. That's like...
quite a ratio. A whole lot of people sign up for Facebook because they
wanted to see a friend or family members's photos, and a whole lot of
people return to the service to see new ones. (And I mean: does the core
Facebook behavior of stalking really provide any satisfaction without
photos? No, it does not.)
Really, Facebook is the world's largest photo sharing site -- that also happens to be a social network and an identity system.

And it's not just *your* photos that matter on Facebook. It's all those photos other people have taken of you and your friends. That means you can't simply take your ball and go home; all the other memories captured by friends that you have easy access to through the system? You can't have them without everyone sitting on the same system.

Data

Google has a ton of data about people's search behavior. They used it to improve the search engine, counting your clicks as votes, essentially. But for a long time, we didn't necessarily see the impact of that information accumulation. Then, in the past year, Google started to unleash a variety of services that show how much data they really have. Start typing any query and Google can tell you what you're most likely to be looking for. That saves you time and opens up new mental pathways for thinking about searches you're doing.

I think Facebook is in a similar position as Google was a couple of years ago. They've been using the data gathered by all those clicks and +1s and using it to make Facebook more addictive. Somehow, the things you're most likely to be interested in show in your news feed. That's the data, right?

But that's really only the beginning. They've amassed the data, which is the hard part. As The Believer's Max Fenton put it, "The pulled off the big heist of making a database of all the humans that isn't explicitly evil. It's a babel, and it's great." But the majority of the data that Facebook has isn't all as easy to parse as counting the +1s and comments to posts.

It's much more difficult to parse the real language that people use to communicate with their friends to determine what's going on in their lives and what that means they want to purchase. But people are flocking to the fields of natural language processing and sentiment analysis, among others, and Facebook will benefit from advances in those and related AI fields.

User-Centered

Perhaps the most highly publicized problem with Facebook's business came
when General Motors pulled its advertising from the service, saying
Facebook's ads didn't work. Today, AdAge revealed why that happened. GM
wanted to take over pages as many companies do on media sites. Facebook
wanted to keep the user experience it had built. GM walked and Facebook's users were protected from intrusive advertising. If you're an advertiser, maybe that gives you pause, but if you're a user: HEY, Zuck's looking out for you!

More broadly, we know when Facebook has erred with its users (remember Beacon?). But we don't know how many times they've avoided making mistakes that would have annoyed users. Can you imagine how many pitches they've gotten to increase revenue by placing more invasive ads? GM certainly wasn't the first and definitely won't be the last.

Privacy

Facebook is not exactly known as a sanctuary of privacy. Their business, after all, is selling you ads based on what you say and do. Insofar as you life on Facebook, you live a perfectly observed and recorded life. So I was shocked when I took a look at a recent paper by two scholars in the North Carolina Law Review arguing that Facebook should actually be seen as a model for privacy. Hear this out, though. It's interesting.

University of North Carolina legal scholars Andrew Chin and Anne Klinefelter look at the problem of "reidentification" and how Facebook appears to have solved it. The basic problem is that we say that data has been anonymized if you remove someone's name, but in reality, that's not true. Many different studies have shown that by combining outside data with the output of a database, it's not that difficult to reidentify someone. For example:

Latanya
Sweeney, then a graduate student at MIT, merged presumably
anonymized Massachusetts state worker hospital records with voter
registration records and was able to identify rather quickly the health
records of then-Governor William Weld.30 Sweeney later published a
broader study finding that 87% of the 1990 U.S. Census population
could be indentified using only gender, zip code, and full date of
birth, and others reproduced this work in the 2000 Census with 63%
success in identifying individuals.

This is a big problem. Big enough that University of Colorado privacy and legal scholar Paul Ohm declared anonymization the core problem with our current world's "broken promises of privacy."

So, one can imagine within this context, that Facebook would be a big problem. They've got the world's biggest database of individuals, right? And they have a way for advertisers to access groups of those people. So one could imagine that Facebook's advertising system might be what Ohm calls "a database of ruin." Fascinatingly, this does not appear to be the case, though. The North Carolina researchers argue that Facebook has achieved "differential privacy." They provide the best possible data to advertisers but manage to protect users' identities as well.

They do so with some clever techniques that Chin and Klinefelter tried to reverse engineer. The researchers hypothesize that Facebook is cleverly changing the rounding on its advertising reach numbers as well as intentionally injecting noise into the system to disrupt people who may be trying to mine the database. They are executing both in conjunction with short-term caching, so that queriers can't fine-tune their searches in order to probe the database and reveal more data than Facebook allows. Their conclusion:

Facebook's apparent implementation of a commercially
successful, differentially private database mechanism provides hope
that in at least some contexts, the law can recognize best practices
that go beyond traditional anonymization techniques to better protect
privacy while maintaining utility of data.

That's right! Facebook and privacy and best practices all in the same sentence. And they've created this system within their monetization wing, no less.

The MySpace Red Herring

It has long been trendy to compare Facebook to MySpace and Friendster,
two social networks that were once dominant. But let's get real here.
There's dominant and there's DOMINANT. No social network has ever
commanded a greater share of Internet users, their time, or their shared
media. And it is not even close. MySpace got passed by Facebook when
they had something like 120 million worldwide visitors a month. That
makes Facebook 7.5 times larger than MySpace ever got. Friendster? They
were in the single-digit millions.

The story is the same with engagement. MySpace peaked at something like
240 minutes a month. Facebook's over 400 minutes. Repeat this same
analysis for media sharing or any other metric of your choosing.
Facebook is not the same kettle of fish.

We're in such uncharted territory that the historical precedents don't
really make sense to apply. Or if we are going to apply them, it
certainly can't be that every dominant social network is inexorably
going to collapse.

Channel Control

Media companies online do not control their distribution channels. They can't directly deliver you content and ads. You must come to us and increasingly that means that you come to us through a social network. We used to put guys in trucks and send salesmen to retail stores; now, the social networks control the channel. Just to be clear here: many sites depend on Facebook for a substantial percentage of their overall traffic.

So, if Facebook decides that it wants users to see more video applications and less social readers, BOOM, it happens. In late April, Facebook made some changes to Timeline and next thing you know, Viddy and Socialcam are taking off like crazy and the Washington Post and Guardian social reader apps tank. If you're in the media, that should scare you. If you're Facebook, it's just another sign that you're in the driver's seat.

Note, too, that Facebook now knows precisely which publications and applications are doing well. Think that gives them an advantage in the public relations and acquisitions games?

Monetization Strategy

Let's return to where we started with Paul Kedrosky. Here he discusses monetization with refreshing simplicity:

This is a two-dial company: You can grow
users, or you can grow revenue per user. (Or both, of course.) Growing
users is doable, but getting harder given increased saturation in
existing markets. Further, it's obvious Facebook is having some ad
inventory issues with respect to putting enough quality ad content in
front of people, especially on mobile, so that's causing some of the
per-user revenue slow down we're seeing.

Is the current dollar per user figure at Facebook a
likely ceiling, floor, or average? It's almost certainly a floor, given
that Facebook hasn't done much to monetize its traffic, beyond slapping
ads against it. That means the current $2-ish /user figure that gets
bandied about almost certainly goes higher, and if it, say, doubles in
four years, that's an extra 18% juice in the revenue model on top of
whatever subscriber growth the company gets.

How do you grow revenues? My guess is it's mostly
ads -- more in mobile, smarter everywhere else -- but it's also getting
into transaction curation. Look at Pinterest, Svpply, etc., to get a
sense of how community, or at least a sub-community, is becoming very
active in helping one another make purchases. That is easily fee-linked,
and then you have another dial to turn in growth per-user revenues.

Conclusion

To recap: A natural monopoly is still an invaluable advantage. The largest social media site is still the largest social media site. The site is still growing quickly across the globe. One in every five page views on the Internet is a Facebook page -- and vast portions of the traffic that flows to other sites around the Internet is channeled through Facebook. If
you think the Internet is valuable, then you implicitly think Facebook
is valuable, too.

Other systems may be possible -- social networking may decentralize or transform in an unforeseen way -- but let's not let 10 days of share price fluctuation blind us to Facebook's unprecedented accomplishments. Not least because an accurate representation of their market power is necessary to hold them to the right standards of privacy, responsibility, and fair dealing.

Department of Omissions: We did not go into Facebook's possible role as a payment method. There's much to be said on this topic as an alternative monetization strategy as investor Eghosa Omoigui pointed out to me on Twitter. Also note that it will be the subject of an upcoming story.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Even when they’re adopted, the children of the wealthy grow up to be just as well-off as their parents.

Lately, it seems that every new study about social mobility further corrodes the story Americans tell themselves about meritocracy; each one provides more evidence that comfortable lives are reserved for the winners of what sociologists call the birth lottery. But, recently, there have been suggestions that the birth lottery’s outcomes can be manipulated even after the fluttering ping-pong balls of inequality have been drawn.

What appears to matter—a lot—is environment, and that’s something that can be controlled. For example, one study out of Harvard found that moving poor families into better neighborhoods greatly increased the chances that children would escape poverty when they grew up.

While it’s well documentedthat the children of the wealthy tend to grow up to be wealthy, researchers are still at work on how and why that happens. Perhaps they grow up to be rich because they genetically inherit certain skills and preferences, such as a tendency to tuck away money into savings. Or perhaps it’s mostly because wealthier parents invest more in their children’s education and help them get well-paid jobs. Is it more nature, or more nurture?

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.